Recent Developments Making Privilege Waivers Less Likely

The past few weeks have seen some extraordinary developments in the area of waiver of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection.

First came the news that the Department of Justice has reversed course after pursuing a policy for many years in which it has pressured corporations to waive privilege if they want to be credited with being cooperative in a DOJ investigation. That policy had been embodied in a memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson entitled "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations," dated January 20, 2003. A short memorandum, entitled "Waiver of Corporate Attorney-Client and Work Product Protections," by Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, Jr., was published on October 21, 2005, which recognized the need to develop some procedural controls that were absent from the Thompson Memorandum. The policies embodied in those memoranda were highly controversial because they represented a systematic assault on the confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship that forms a central backbone of our adversarial judicial system. The DOJ in effect was saying that it could pressure corporations to waive confidentiality during an investigation, even though such a waiver could have disasterous consequences for individual corporate employees who also were targets of the same investigation and for the company and its employees in companion civil litigation brought by private parties.

The controversy led to a revised memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty entitled "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations," dated December 13, 2006, but that memorandum brought little real change in policy. Although it imposed new internal approval procedures that prosecutors had to follow when requesting that a corporate target waive privilege, the fundamental issue remained: Prosecutors were empowered to make requesting waiver of privilege a part of their arsenal whenever they felt justified in doing so.

However, all of that changed on August 28, 2009 when newly-appointed Deputy Attorney General Mark R. Filip announced the promulgation of a new policy. Bowing to pressure from a wide range of sources, the DOJ adopted a formal policy generally directing prosecutors not to seek privilege waivers from companies as part of their cooperation efforts. Rather than continue the string of less formal internal memoranda, the new policy formally was incorporated into Chapter 9-28 of the U.S. Attorneys' Manual. This change likely will moot efforts in Congress to legislatively direct a change in DOJ policy regarding a waiver-based quid pro quo.

Second, and coincidentally on the same day, the Second Circuit published United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2008). In addition to pressuring companies to waive privilege to the detriment of individual employees (often ex-employees), the DOJ also had a policy of pressuring corporations not to pay the legal fees of accused employees. Among other things, this represented a different kind of erosion of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, i.e. by preventing company employees from hiring lawyers so that attorney-based privileges never arose in the first place. In Stein, the Second Circuit held that it was improper for the DOJ to have pressured KPMG into refusal to pay defense costs for numerous individuals at KPMG who were accused of wrongdoing in connection with counseling clients regarding various tax shelters. The court found that the DOJ's actions deprived those individual defendants of their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the indictment.

Finally, last week the U.S. Congress sent legislation to the President that would create a new Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which the Judicial Conference proposed to Congress on September 26, 2007. As stated in the original proposal, and in the Senate committee report on the legislation, the purpose of new Rule 502 is to provide protections against waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, and to reduce the costs associated with discovery (and, it was noted, particularly electronic discovery). The rule accomplishes the following:

1. Avoidance of broad subject-matter waiver implications. If a waiver is found, it only applies to the information disclosed, unless a broader waiver is made necesary by the holder's intentional and misleading use of protected information.
2. Waiver does not occur through inadvertent disclosure. Inadvertent disclosure in federal proceedings does not cause a waiver if the holder took reasonable steps to avoid inadvertent disclosure and took reasonable steps to claw it back, e.g. following Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B).
3. Non-waiver provisions in protective orders enforceable. If a federal court orders that disclosure of protected information is not a waiver, that order is also binding against non-parties and in both state and federal proceedings. If the parties enter into a non-waiver agreement, they can make it binding on non-parties by having it entered as a court order.
4. State courts covered. When a disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: (1) would not be a waiver under Rule 502 if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or (2) is not a waiver under the law of that state.

If signed by the President as expected, Rule 502 will not change the substantive law of privilege at all, only the law of waiver. As one member of the House of Representatives remarked, "The
legislation improves the efficiency and the discovery process, while it still promotes accountability. It alters neither Federal nor State law on whether the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine protects specific information. The bill only modifies the consequences of an inadvertent disclosure once a privilege exists." (Cong. Rec. Sept. 8, 2008 at p. H7819.)

Hopefully this new rule will give parties confidence in the non-waiver agreement as a cost-reducing technique in appropriate cases, lessen the consequences of inadvertent production, and reduce litigation over waiver issues.

While House Embroiled In E-Discovery Controversy

While lawyers may be getting used to the occasional e-discovery dispute boiling over into the trade press or advance sheets, we still don't expect to see it make front-page news in traditional media. But there, on the front of today's Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, and many others, are dreaded phrases like "deleted e-mails," "backup tapes," and "preservation."

The White House has been under fire since last year based on an investigation that found numerous e-mails had not been preserved as they should have been. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino acknowledged this in April 2007, saying there could be as much as 5 million missing e-mails. In response to that report, a public watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, brought a lawsuit asserting that the White House and certain agencies were in violation of the Federal Records Act and other statutes. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Executive Office of the President, Civ. No. 1:07 cv 1707 (HHK) (D.D.C.).

The complaint asserted that the only place the missing e-mails might still exist is on backup tapes the White House made for disaster recovery purposes. Plaintiff moved for expedited discovery on that subject. In response, on January 8, 2008 the court ordered the government to provide an affidavit answering four specific questions designed to cut through the dispute and determine whether the backup tapes did or did not have the e-mails that were the subject of the case.

Yesterday, the White House filed the affidavit. It essentially admitted that the White House "recycled" its backup tapes for several years. In other words, many of the e-mails are not going to be found on those tapes because tapes regularly were overwritten with newer data. If this sounds like the kind of thing that gets litigants into trouble these days, you're right. In its briefs, the White House seems to take the position that because the recycling did not happen once the complaint was filed, but that misses the point. The lawsuit maintains that the government has a statutory duty not to destroy the e-mails wholly apart from whatever obligations exist under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Even without that duty, the duty to preserve would have kicked in much earlier because of plaintiff's pre-litigation demands.

This has the potential to become the best-known e-discovery spoliation case to date. Watch the plaintiff's web site as the story develops.

New York Does Not Recognize Tort Of Negligent Spoliation By Third Parties

In Ortega v. City of New York, No. 118, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 07741, 2007 WL 2988760 (N.Y. Oct. 16, 2007), New York’s highest court refused to recognize spoliation of evidence as an independent tort.

Plaintiff had suffered injuries in a vehicle that caught fire, but the City of New York negligently destroyed the vehicle in the ordinary course of its handling of unclaimed vehicles despite plaintiff’s attorney having obtained an order to preserve the car. Plaintiff did not attempt to sue the manufacturer, but sued the city on a theory of negligent spoliation.

The high court joined the majority of other courts considering the question, and ruled that no such cause of action exists. It also observed that here the plaintiff was not without some recourse given that she could pursue at least some damages for the city’s contempt of court.

Internet service providers, computer backup companies, on-line storage outfits and similar companies in New York perhaps heaved a collective sigh of relief, knowing that they could not be sued (at least in New York) for spoliation because of accidental or even intentional deletion of electronic files.

Federal District Court Examines Evidentiary Issues Concerning Electronic Records

The Chief Magistrate Judge of the federal court in Maryland has issued an important opinion analyzing a myriad of evidentiary issues that parties using electronic documents face in summary judgment and trial situations.

In Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. May 4, 2007), the court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the grounds that courts may only consider on summary judgment those materials that are in the form of admissible evidence, and the electronic evidence offered here was not shown to be admissible. In analyzing the motions, the court published a lengthy opinion studying in detail a variety of means to satisfy federal evidentiary requirements for the admission of electronically stored information (“ESI”).

Of particular interest is the court’s discussion of the need to properly authenticate various forms of ESI, which the movants did not even attempt to do, thereby causing what the court termed “self-inflicted wounds.”

Non-ISP Lacks Standing To Challenge Party Seeking Identity Of Internet Poster

As computer users have embraced the apparent anonymity of the Internet, businesses who find themselves the targets of online disparagement have attempted to sue the responsible parties for defamation. To do so, they often bring third-party discovery against the Internet service provider (“ISP”) to reveal the identity of the account holder who posted the defamatory remarks.

In Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe, No. H028699 (Cal. App. (6th Dist) Apr. 18, 2006), the court observed that in a typical such case, the anonymous party normally steps forward to oppose the disclosure of his or her identity, and clearly has standing to do so. In Matrixx, however, the plaintiff was able to trace users who posted allegedly defamatory comments on a Web site to a hedge fund called Barbary Coast Capital Management, and in a deposition the principal of that company refused to answer direct questions about the identity of the posters.

The California court held that the witness in this case had no protected interest in the matter and lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of the anonymous posters. The court ordered the witness to answer plaintiff’s questions.

Plaintiff Requesting Electronic Discovery Required To Pay Part Of The Cost

As reported in an earlier post, the Southern District of New York recently developed an approach to determining who should pay the costs for restoring otherwise unavailable electronic documents. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2003). Since then, defendant restored a sampling of e-mail backup tapes, and based on that sample plaintiff demanded that defendant pay the cost of full production. In Zubulake, 216 F.R.D. 280 (July 24, 2003), the court applied its new approach and concluded that plaintiff must pay 25% of the cost of restoration; however, once data is restored the “usual rules of discovery apply” -- defendant must pay the costs of production, such as attorneys’ review for privilege. The court suggested that defendant potentially could shift those costs by making a Rule 68 offer of judgment.

Mississippi Adopts Special Electronic Discovery Rule

The Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure generally track the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, on May 29, 2003, Rule 26(b)(5) was added specifically to authorize and regulate discovery of electronic data. Recognizing that special problems may exist in the retrieval of such data, the rule limits the duty of production of electronic data to that which is reasonably available to the responding party in its ordinary course of business. Further, if extraordinary steps are required to comply with the request, the court may require the requesting party to pay the expense of those steps.

N.Y. Federal Court Releases Significant E-Discovery Opinion

In a discovery dispute involving a large broker-dealer, a federal court established a new framework for analyzing who must bear the cost of searching computer media for e-mail. The court found that a cost-shifting analysis is not triggered by the mere presence of electronic documents; rather, cost-shifting should be considered “only when electronic discovery imposes an undue burden or expense” – which usually is a function of how it is stored. The court established a new 7-factor test for situations eligible for cost-shifting. Here, the court required defendant to pay for searching all e-mail still on its servers or optical media; however, restoration and searching of backup tapes would be subject to sampling followed by a cost-sharing analysis. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2003).